Chamber and committees

Shona Riach would have been my senior official at that stage.

I am sorry, but speaking for myself, given that that was the question, I recall that, when the process around a new chief executive officer was under discussion, part of the conversation was that it would be a good thing for there to be a new chief executive officer who would be able to deal with reform questions in Historic Environment Scotland and that there was a requirement for reform. That, as a matter of record, was part of the consideration, when the process with regard to the chief executive was under way.

I agree with the Auditor General about the complexity and sensitivity of the situation.

We are dealing, on the one hand, with an organisation that was created in statute by Parliament. I was reminded that a number of committee members, including you, convener, and Neil Bibby, were on the committee that considered the bill that created Historic Environment Scotland. George Adam was, too—my apologies, Mr Adam. Therefore, there will be good institutional memory in this committee about the fact that Historic Environment Scotland was created as a body independent of operational control from the Government.

That arrangement is fine if serious problems do not emerge in the arm’s-length body. We are dealing with this matter here not just because of the Auditor General’s report, but because there has been significant whistleblowing and media coverage of a whole range of issues within Historic Environment Scotland that have led to a particularly complex situation.

That has led to me making decisions where I have a direct locus in relation to leadership. There is now a new chairman of the board, a new chief operating officer and new board members, and an investigation carried out through an external investigator, David Martin, has begun.

On the point about an accountable officer, it is important to be aware that, at the heart of the timeline, the chief executive officer—who is the accountable officer—of Historic Environment Scotland was prevented from returning to work by the HES board. That is important in terms of the hierarchy of priorities for understanding what happened during this particularly vexed period.

The legal position in all of this is also very important to bear in mind—quite apart from the ability to have a 360° view or 10/10 vision in hindsight—when it comes to whether people are off work, how long they are off work for, whether they are suspended and how long all of that takes.

Understanding the legal underpinning of the accountable officer role is also very important. The legislation requires that the accountable officer be a member of HES staff. That is point 1. Therefore, the first option in dealing with this issue of an accountable officer who is not in the office is to try and enable them to return to work when they are ready to do so. Between June and September last year, the chief executive officer and accountable officer made clear to the Scottish Government and to the board that she wished to return to work but she and the board informed the Scottish Government that the board was preventing her from returning to post and that that was the situation for the majority of the five and a half months of her absence.

From June onwards, the board’s position was that if the chief executive officer and AO did not accept an extended period of leave, it would suspend her. That suspension finally happened on Friday 5 September. If people have looked closely at the timeline, they will have noticed that that is the last day in office of the former chairman of the board.

Given the impact of losing the services of the chief executive officer and AO, Scottish Government officials repeatedly asked for clarification from the HES board about the legal basis and reasons underpinning its decision that she should not return to work.

Members of this committee will be aware that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the United Kingdom’s independent public body providing authoritative guidance on fair workplace practice, makes clear that suspension should be used only as a last resort.

When it became clear in June of 2025 that, because of the board’s continued stance and despite the chief executive officer’s wish to return to work, a period of extended absence was possible, the Scottish Government considered other options. I am happy to go into that, because the Scottish Government did pursue options for a replacement of the accountable officer.

I was not in office throughout that period, so I am not in a position to have enough information to hand about that. I am conscious of there being a number of issues being reported back to me—in particular, throughout last year. Some of the issues were reported through the Scottish Government sponsorship team or shared by whistleblowers and so on, and they often related to issues that go back to before last year. When all of this started is, no doubt, an issue that David Martin will be looking at as part of his review.

That is correct.

I did act and I decided that the chairman of the board of Historic Environment Scotland should not remain in office.

The timeline is important, and I am sure that Mr Kerr will want to reflect on that. When the issue became as serious as it did and it was no longer the kind of human resources issue that might be common in organisations, but a profound breakdown, with grievances having been submitted in different directions of the organisation, it would have been totally improper for me to meet—

It is, no doubt, the view of the former chairman of the board, but it would also be fair to point out—and this goes to the heart of the difficulty that the HES leadership had got itself into—

This may be helpful to Mr Harvie, because he is trying to understand where things were at that point and what that led to in terms of how we should act in such circumstances. Bearing in mind that the accountable officer has to be an employee of Historic Environment Scotland, after our first priority, which was the return to work of the chief executive officer after periods of illness, the second option was to consider whether any other senior staff member of HES—an employee of HES, because that was a requirement for being an accountable officer—could have been the acting accountable officer with those responsibilities. If a permanent finance director had been in post, or if a chief operating officer role had existed at the time, the Scottish Government could have considered that person as an acting accountable officer. However, that was not the case so it was not possible. That is a very important fact.

Neither were other senior staff members of Historic Environment Scotland available to be appointed as accountable officer, because of their own involvement in on-going internal processes. Ultimately, therefore, no suitable internal candidates were identified by either the HES board or the Scottish Government. That route, therefore, would not satisfy the wish of the Scottish Government, as identified by the Auditor General in his report. Efforts were undertaken to consider external candidates, and interviews also took place for a fourth external candidate, who was recommended by the HES board as an acting accountable officer.

My point in sharing this information is that there has been a suggestion or implication that efforts were not undertaken to find an accountable officer, given the then suspension of the chief executive; however, I assure Mr Harvie and the committee that the Scottish Government made such efforts.

My first reflection is that I am unaware of a similarly complex situation that has thrown up significant issues in relation to HR and potential legal challenge. How does one help an operationally independent organisation to find its way through such difficulties? That will no doubt be a doctoral thesis at some time by someone, but, in the meantime, it is good that we have somebody of the experience of David Martin looking at it right now.

Regardless of the exact circumstances of what happened, beginning with the chief executive’s absence and then the new phase with the board not allowing her to return to work, it caused the Scottish Government and the board of Historic Environment Scotland to act. It is very important for there to be an understanding that efforts were made to identify somebody who might be able to fulfil the responsibilities of chief executive officer and accountable officer.